Current Trial Russell Hill & Carol Clay - Wonnangatta *Pilot Greg Lynn Pleads Not Guilty to Murder

[Kurve]

MOD NOTICE

This case is sub judice as under consideration by the courts. Sub judice contempt can occur if information is published that may be prejudicial to the court proceedings.

Please do not state as fact that which is opinion. Also, use 'IMO' and 'allegedly' a lot.

Rules - Updated Crime Board Rules - READ BEFORE POSTING​

General Information The BigFooty Crime board is a community that fosters discussion on current and past crimes, some which have social and media notoriety, that attracts the attention of public opinion and discussion on such matters. Please read these rules very carefully, both the Big Footy...

www.bigfooty.com

On the Greg Lynn committal proceedings Crown Prosecutor Mr Dickie said 'It is clear hopefully from the document, and if it's not clear from the document it's clear hopefully from the charges put before the court, that it is alleged of course that the accused acted with murderous intent when he allegedly killed the two victims.'

 

[FrankGrimes]

IMO;
This week the prosecution in detailing, how thoroughly GL covered up all evidence via burning and what little was left to discern what actually happened, is directing the jury to consider the acts taken.
The so called 'choices' of GL.
Even though this evidence is uncontested by the defence, this tactic is putting to the forefront the reasonability of the actions taken.
There is an emphasis here by the prosecution I believe, of 'is this all normal and logical or even rational' in the choices made or does it show manifest culpability.

I am now very interested to know how the defence will actually justify these 'choices' of GL's victimhood of the circumstances.
What definitively and logically can absolve someone for not reporting two 'accidental' deaths?
Someone who by all standards in their professional occupation, is required to be logical, responsable and respectful of authority.

100% this, people saying they need prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, this is of course true but would a reasonable person who was
Just involved in 2 “accidental” deaths act that way, burning bodies twice? Returning to the scene to check etc..
There is no way the prosecution can prove his story true because he’s the only living witness, but they can show this isn’t the actions of an innocent man.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

IMO;
This week the prosecution in detailing, how thoroughly GL covered up all evidence via burning and what little was left to discern what actually happened, is directing the jury to consider the acts taken.
The so called 'choices' of GL.
Even though this evidence is uncontested by the defence, this tactic is putting to the forefront the reasonability of the actions taken.
There is an emphasis here by the prosecution I believe, of 'is this all normal and logical or even rational' in the choices made or does it show manifest culpability.

I am now very interested to know how the defence will actually justify these 'choices' of GL's victimhood of the circumstances.
What definitively and logically can absolve someone for not reporting two 'accidental' deaths?
Someone who by all standards in their professional occupation, is required to be logical, responsable and respectful of authority.

I think it will be a telling factor if GL doesn't get on the witness stand. To me if he doesn't want to talk about it under oath then he's been telling lies to cover up the facts.

There is no way the prosecution can prove his story true because he’s the only living witness, but they can show this isn’t the actions of an innocent man.

It's either the actions of a man trying to cover up what he thinks could be the perfect murder, or the actions of a man trying to perfectly cover up two accidental deaths and I don't think the prosecution has gone even 1% of the way to proving the first action.

 

[MiguelM]

I think it will be a telling factor if GL doesn't get on the witness stand. To me if he doesn't want to talk about it under oath then he's been telling lies to cover up the facts.

It's either the actions of a man trying to cover up what he thinks could be the perfect murder, or the actions of a man trying to perfectly cover up two accidental deaths and I don't think the prosecution has gone even 1% of the way to proving the first action.

Thing is Jury will be all ears on a prosecution theory.

Even if GL is telling the truth, his actions post paint a different story. Is it enough to be "beyond reasonable doubt"? Probably not for legal professionals but juries can do what they like to a point.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

IMO;
This week the prosecution in detailing, how thoroughly GL covered up all evidence via burning and what little was left to discern what actually happened, is directing the jury to consider the acts taken.
The so called 'choices' of GL.
Even though this evidence is uncontested by the defence, this tactic is putting to the forefront the reasonability of the actions taken.
There is an emphasis here by the prosecution I believe, of 'is this all normal and logical or even rational' in the choices made or does it show manifest culpability.

I am now very interested to know how the defence will actually justify these 'choices' of GL's victimhood of the circumstances.
What definitively and logically can absolve someone for not reporting two 'accidental' deaths?
Someone who by all standards in their professional occupation, is required to be logical, responsable and respectful of authority.

Have they played the “mental health” card yet?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Thing is Jury will be all ears on a prosecution theory.

Even if GL is telling the truth, his actions post paint a different story. Is it enough to be "beyond reasonable doubt"? Probably not for legal professionals but juries can do what they like to a point.

I would expect the judge to be wise to the defence tactics, hear the prosecution evidence and direct the jury accordingly. IMO

 

[MiguelM]

I would expect the judge to be wise to the defence tactics, hear the prosecution evidence and direct the jury accordingly. IMO

I have been on a few juries and every time the Judge virtually hints at what path for the jury to take without actually saying it.

 

[Lady O]

I have been on a few juries and every time the Judge virtually hints at what path for the jury to take without actually saying it.

Absolutely!

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I have been on a few juries and every time the Judge virtually hints at what path for the jury to take without actually saying it.

And in this case, between the defence and the judge I reckon the phrase 'beyond a reasonable doubt' will be mentioned 37 times to emphasise the prosecution must have proved there is no reasonable possibility of the accused's innocence.
And so far good luck to them doing that!

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I would expect the judge to be wise to the defence tactics, hear the prosecution evidence and direct the jury accordingly. IMO

However, that can lead the jury down the wrong path as was highlighted in this trial that was won on appeal:

https://postnewspapers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/investigations/Christie-case/2004/2004_07_24_Judges_errors_jailed_Christie_says_QC.pdf

 

[theouthouse]

I think it will be a telling factor if GL doesn't get on the witness stand. To me if he doesn't want to talk about it under oath then he's been telling lies to cover up the facts.

It's either the actions of a man trying to cover up what he thinks could be the perfect murder, or the actions of a man trying to perfectly cover up two accidental deaths and I don't think the prosecution has gone even 1% of the way to proving the first action.

I think it will be up to the prosecution to put forward compelling inconsistencies in GLs timeline, behaviour and version of events for GL to take the stand.

'Shit scared' chasing a man with a gun who has already fired it, wrestling with him while he was in possession of the gun. Burning bodies while being physically sick from the process. A courageous man who has not told his wife, or anyone close to him, let alone police, of 'the accident' that happened. Where every action has been to cover up his previous action? I can't see this being the actions of a man who would chase down a gun weilding 'grumpy old man'.

IMO.

 

[10571z]

Thing is Jury will be all ears on a prosecution theory.

Even if GL is telling the truth, his actions post paint a different story. Is it enough to be "beyond reasonable doubt"? Probably not for legal professionals but juries can do what they like to a point.

Sets a dangerous precedent to have 2 dead people and just remove every trace of evidence and basically any chance to prove someone 100% guilty.

 

[MiguelM]

However, that can lead the jury down the wrong path as was highlighted in this trial that was won on appeal:

https://postnewspapers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/investigations/Christie-case/2004/2004_07_24_Judges_errors_jailed_Christie_says_QC.pdf

That is the real danger isn't it, a guilty verdict will 100% be appealed.

Where does this sit in relation to Manslaughter? To me (even though I think he did it) a manslaughter charge will still put him away for a long time.

If not guilty, can he still go for manslaughter?

 

[Awakening]

It’s beyond reasonable doubt not beyond all doubt.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Sets a dangerous precedent to have 2 dead people and just remove every trace of evidence and basically any chance to prove someone 100% guilty.

It will be a dangerous precedent if it's accepted as a reasonable story. And will be a blueprint for anyone in the future who commits murder - burn down the murder scene and all evidence then take the body to a remote location and burn it. Got it

 

[MrsBlueSky]

That is the real danger isn't it, a guilty verdict will 100% be appealed.

Where does this sit in relation to Manslaughter? To me (even though I think he did it) a manslaughter charge will still put him away for a long time.

If not guilty, can he still go for manslaughter?

I think if the jury comes back and says not guilty of murder, then the judge can tell them to go away and have another think about it in terms of manslaughter.
At the end of the day it could be one murder and one manslaughter convictions.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

It will be a dangerous precedent if it's accepted as a reasonable story. And will be a blueprint for anyone in the future who commits murder - burn down the murder scene and all evidence then take the body to a remote location and burn it. Got it

Given there are scores of perps convicted of murder when no body is ever found or recovered, I think there is a good chance Lynn get's his just desserts here.

 

[GrayRanga]

It’s beyond reasonable doubt not beyond all doubt.

Yep.

Especially if the prosecution is allowed to enter his post deaths actions into evidence.

That the defence have already mentioned Lynn's decisions post event, suggests that these actions will be lead into evidence

The Court may also explore the "reasonable man" (or to be perfectly woke; the reasonable person) test.

Are the actions that of a reasonable person in those circumstances?

I would suggest that a reasonable person would, if faced with two accidental deaths would immediately seek medical assistance or at least notify authorities of their deaths and remain in the vicinity until assistance arrived.

He did have a radio (the aerial can be seen in the photo taken the next morning) but may not had reception, but if he driven towards Dargo to meet the Dargo Mt Hotham Rd (and dump the bodies), he would have passed through or near places with radio or phone reception. If I remember correctly, Dargo has a publc phone near the pub

I would suggest that a series of unfortunate decisions, including moving the bodies, stealing possibly incriminating evidence, burning the scene to destroy evidence, removing and dumping the bodies in a remote location, revisiting the decaying corpses, setting fire to them with an accelerant so fierce that DNA is not readily attainable and then (if I read the evidence correctly) breaking up and scattering the bones are not those of reasonable person faced with "tragic" accidental deaths

If the post events are led into evidence, the jury will be faced with weighing Lynn's evidence in the ROI against the other evidence to form the opinion as to whether story on the ROI are sufficient to satisfy reasonable doubt

 

[Quiet_Reading]

Hey Everyone here, I have been following this case & it is quite remarkable both in media reporting & also what GL had claimed happened.

I have read probably most comments in these threads, & this is why I
chose to post.

Something that stuck with me my son said (Gun licenced, previous hunting with deer in NSW & more interested in clubs now).

After hearing the GL story, my son said: “He probably had more than one gun Mum”, on a hunting trip that isn’t unusual & he also said the deer around the area are big beasts & there is minimum calibre allowed, also for Animal:ethical reasons so that that the cull/kill is immediate.

So since that day we had this discussion over a coffee, it turns out GL had at least 9 firearms, it’s not unusual.

My thinking is even if RH took a gun from GL, had his drone footage, most hunters would take at least 2 guns as per my son. So it’s possible that any dispute there could have been a second gun used, not the gun RH had allegedly taken. I personally don’t buy the knife story. Always keep an open mind though, but more than one gun theory is interesting & entirely plausible.

I’m just dumbfounded about what has happened with the destruction of evidence, the disrespect for the victims bodies since, & the heartbreak the families would have gone through.

I’m not even going to mention Mrs Russell’s naivety on an erection that wouldn’t go down & admission to hospital that was “depression related”. He lied to her about that, also the affair ongoing, it’s usually a ‘floppy situation’ with depression in men, he probably OD’d on Viagra, a cardiac med that can also have other side effects apart from his feeling faintness from the penis issue.

I feel very badly for RH elderly wife & family, but it shouldn’t detract from anything GL did.

Maybe this will be my last post, but the only reason I did is because I thought it might help the thinking regarding GL having multiple firearms, not just the one he allegedly wrestled with RH over.

 

[FrankGrimes]

I think if the jury comes back and says not guilty of murder, then the judge can tell them to go away and have another think about it in terms of manslaughter.
At the end of the day it could be one murder and one manslaughter convictions.

They have already said I believe he can go for manslaughter if needed

 

[LeChatNoir]

Hey Everyone here, I have been following this case & it is quite remarkable both in media reporting & also what GL had claimed happened.

I have read probably most comments in these threads, & this is why I
chose to post.

Something that stuck with me my son said (Gun licenced, previous hunting with deer in NSW & more interested in clubs now).

After hearing the GL story, my son said: “He probably had more than one gun Mum”, on a hunting trip that isn’t unusual & he also said the deer around the area are big beasts & there is minimum calibre allowed, also for Animal:ethical reasons so that that the cull/kill is immediate.

So since that day we had this discussion over a coffee, it turns out GL had at least 9 firearms, it’s not unusual.

My thinking is even if RH took a gun from GL, had his drone footage, most hunters would take at least 2 guns as per my son. So it’s possible that any dispute there could have been a second gun used, not the gun RH had allegedly taken. I personally don’t buy the knife story. Always keep an open mind though, but more than one gun theory is interesting & entirely plausible.

I’m just dumbfounded about what has happened with the destruction of evidence, the disrespect for the victims bodies since, & the heartbreak the families would have gone through.

I’m not even going to mention Mrs Russell’s naivety on an erection that wouldn’t go down & admission to hospital that was “depression related”. He lied to her about that, also the affair ongoing, it’s usually a ‘floppy situation’ with depression in men, he probably OD’d on Viagra, a cardiac med that can also have other side effects apart from his feeling faintness from the penis issue.

I feel very badly for RH elderly wife & family, but it shouldn’t detract from anything GL did.

Maybe this will be my last post, but the only reason I did is because I thought it might help the thinking regarding GL having multiple firearms, not just the one he allegedly wrestled with RH over.

Great post and some good points to consider.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I find all the salacious gossip about Viagra and related issues disrespectful and irrelevant.

 

[GladdyDee]

This is case is text book fascinating - both simple and complex.So many rabbit holes if you want to go down them.

IMO
I always go back to my initial reaction when the burnt site was reported. When I knew nothing of GL but had a sketch of the two campers.

My mind went like this


… someone younger crept up on elderly campers and perhaps killed them while their defences were down - ie sleeping or relaxing
… someone with malice as not interested in stuff or had their own
… someone who got aggro due to something that happened, maybe a personal violation - couple might have voiced off to him about his practices or noise etc Camp rage incident
.. Perp may have waited and took them by surprise or alternatively it happened on the spot when he came over to have it out with them
… Perp destroyed all the site to make sure his presence and theirs was wiped

Never thought the older couple would have started anything physical, as two 70 somethings, having romantic trip, out in the woods. Not in 100 years. Way too risky.

Occam’s Razor Theory

IMO

 

[Quiet_Reading]

I find all the salacious gossip about Viagra and related issues disrespectful and irrelevant.

It’s not salacious gossip, RH was using viagra to get it on with his lover CC. The ripped up script labels were found in her bathroom bin by a detective.

 

[Quiet_Reading]

Great post and some good points to consider.

Hi LeChatNoir, yes I have sat on that conversation for over a week or more & appreciate everyone’s posts here. “He probably had 2 guns Mum” like who goes off shooting with just one - yeah nah. It has never gone out of my head this conversation.

That’s why I posted.

 

[GladdyDee]

This is case is text book fascinating - both simple and complex.So many rabbit holes if you want to go down them.

IMO
I always go back to my initial reaction when the burnt site was reported. When I knew nothing of GL but had a sketch of the two campers.

My mind went like this


… someone younger crept up on elderly campers and perhaps killed them while their defences were down - ie sleeping or relaxing
… someone with malice as not interested in stuff or had their own
… someone who got aggro due to something that happened, maybe a personal violation - couple might have voiced off to him about his practices or noise etc Camp rage incident
.. Perp may have waited and took them by surprise or alternatively it happened on the spot when he came over to have it out with them
… Perp destroyed all the site to make sure his presence and theirs was wiped

Never thought the older couple would have started anything physical, as two 70 somethings, having romantic trip, out in the woods. Not in 100 years. Way too risky.

Occam’s Razor Theory

IMO

Also add it crossed my mind it was possibly more than one person given it appeared to be so brazenly calculated, and possibly safety in numbers in doing this kind of activity. But clearly not in scope for this crime IMO